Some sports reward excellent practioners with titles which are awarded based on their accomplishments in the sport. In chess titles such as Grandmast (GM), Internation Master (IM) and Fide Master (FM) are awarded based on performance. Many Asian orginated sports have their own titles, such as Black Belt. Some team sports reward selection to the national (in same cases also the tier one level below such as state/province) team with a nickname. In the case of Rugby Union, an Australian who wins selection to the national team is thereafter known as a Wallaby, a New Zealander similarly elevated to the national team is known as an All Black (and accorded great respect by the community for the rest of their life even if they only ever played one test match for New Zealand).

I have noticed a growing tendency amonst some of the regulars to the AE forum in making reference to AE Grandmasters, but never identifying any individuals who should be viewed as an AE Grandmaster. I also recall how, from time to time, someone raises the possibility of establishing a list of reliable/worthwhile PBEM players (and conversely a list of those to avoid would become obvious). This latter idea is always lampooned for several reasons; the pejorative connotations figuring most prominently.

It seems to me that the title of AE Grandmaster (AEGM) would have no pejorative connotations. It would only be awarded to players who have demonstrated a very high skill level in playing the game (as evidenced by their AARs) or for those who do not maintain an AAR (which is the absolute and overwhelming majority of people who have bought and play the game) by the quality and accuracy of their constructive contributions to the forum which demonstrate mastery of the game.

Unfortunately neither an objective committee or objective thresholds to determine who could qualify as an AEGM is realistic. Nonetheless, I would suggest that if an individual is nominted by 4 others (be they 4 played opponents or regular constructive forum contributors, or maybe even just lurkers who have learnt how to play the game properly in all/most of its aspects from reading the nominees regular posts) could be awarded, by general accolade the title of AEGM. Having four nominations will assist in maintaining a consensual agreement as to the worthiness of the holder of the AEGM title.

To set the ball rolling I would nominate Nemo as the AEGM. His extensive writings on his own and other's games where he explains how to play the game well plus the results he achieves in demolishing opponents, I believe would be agreed by all as making him a worthy receipient of the title. Would there be 3 others to equally nominate Nemo? Who else should be nominated and receive the additional three confirmatory nominations?

Perhaps once the initial list of AEGMs is created, they could form a committee to vet the nominees for the title of AEGM. That would mean the initial list of title holders should clearly stand shoulders above the rest of the AE community with absolutely no doubt as to the worthiness of their suitability to hold the title.

Interesting. Eventually this will be flamed, I'm sure. In the meantime, I'll put in the first nomination for Canoerebel. Prominent instructor since WiTP. Enjoyed his writings as a lurker, now appreciate his ongoing lessons to other noobs.

Hm, a grandmaster usually needs to win a tournament before he can claim this title...

Not necessarily. The Chess grandmaster norm is quite high but doesn't guarantee first place in the tournament. Much depends on the ratings of the opponents faced. It also generally requires more than one norm, although if you do become world champion, that will suffice for the title and the acquisition of further norms is set aside.

Besides with the length of time required to finish a single game, how many decades do you think we would have to keep alive any AEGM norms achieved. In chess there is a time limit within which all the requisite norms must be achieved. Old norms can be lost if the remaining norms are not acquired within the time limit.

Hm, a grandmaster usually needs to win a tournament before he can claim this title...

Not necessarily. The Chess grandmaster norm is quite high but doesn't guarantee first place in the tournament. Much depends on the ratings of the opponents faced. It also generally requires more than one norm, although if you do become world champion, that will suffice for the title and the acquisition of further norms is set aside.

Besides with the length of time required to finish a single game, how many decades do you think we would have to keep alive any AEGM norms achieved. In chess there is a time limit within which all the requisite norms must be achieved. Old norms can be lost if the remaining norms are not acquired within the time limit.

Alfred

A VERY good point. How about changing the title from Grandmaster to Grandfather?

Concerning who is applicable I´ll go with the usual suspects including you as the WitP AE encyclopedia.

ORIGINAL: Alfred the quality and accuracy of their constructive contributions to the forum which demonstrate mastery of the game.

FWIW here's my listie of some folks who deserve recognition: - witpqs, he's got an eye for detail & a good answer to the question that was asked; - michealm, developer/coder sanspareil; - Cribtop, for superlatively well-organized & informative AARs; & - Cuttlefish, who puts us 'into the action' while reminding us of the human side of global war.

Whoa, I just came along and found my name bandied about in flattering ways (thanks, Chickenboy - I think I have to marry you now).

I and many of the other players listed here are experienced and capable players, but most of us are not at the grandmaster level.

There are only two players that I know enough about to say without reservation that they are grandmasters: Nemo and Alfred (and what I wouldn't give to see a match between those two guys).

Caveat: I came along fairly late in the development of WitP and I've missed out on alot of the "plank owner" era. There are probably other players who merit consideration, but I am not familiar with them simply because I haven't followed the AARs nor played them in a match. Two that come to mind are PzB and jcar.

Whoa, I just came along and found my name bandied about in flattering ways (thanks, Chickenboy - I think I have to marry you now).

No problem, Dan.

I think it's important to honor our elders for their efforts to educate the younger masses. The much, much younger masses. It's also important to honor one's elders before they die of natural causes. Could happen any minute with some of the more decrepit ones out there, so nominating them whilest they draw breath is very important.

I would like to also nominate Alfred, LoBaron, ny59giants, Mike Solli, Q-Ball, cantona2,and Fletcher on top of those worthy players that have already been put-forward. I consider that all the players so far mentioned in this thread, have put many tireless hour though their writings into helping others better understand this game. I also consider all to be brilliant tacticians in their own-right, and they would have made worthy theatre commanders in the real war.

< Message edited by DivePac88 -- 8/1/2011 11:04:25 PM >

_____________________________

When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time You understand now, Why you came this way

ORIGINAL: Alfred the quality and accuracy of their constructive contributions to the forum which demonstrate mastery of the game.

FWIW here's my listie of some folks who deserve recognition: - witpqs, he's got an eye for detail & a good answer to the question that was asked; - michealm, developer/coder sanspareil; - Cribtop, for superlatively well-organized & informative AARs; & - Cuttlefish, who puts us 'into the action' while reminding us of the human side of global war.

There are a heck of alot of experienced and capable AE players, all of whom belong in roughly the same classification - good guys/good players. IMO, there are only a few that are clearly at the head of the class.

But three guys who jump at out me as deserving special mention:

Terminus: Just because it wil irritate the fire out of him.

Bullwinkle: Because he's a good Moose.

GreyJoy: Because the guy is keeping the entire forum entertained with his steadfastness, foibles, creative spelling, and genuine cheerfulness.